Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Jul 13, 2004 3:14pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: SUMMING UP finis

I started by giving mild criticism of "I DO THEY DONT" and ended by gaining many enemies and no friends. FINISHED but at it again when another similar film arrives

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tambora Date: Jul 13, 2004 3:58pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: SUMMING UP finis

Well, Cashel, or should I say "Jack2," you're very good at opening up cans of worms just for the glee of throwing them in people's food. This is not necessarily a character flaw; it just gets old after awhile.

The fact is, in our ultra-sensitive world where saying one word against a formerly-persecuted minority is grounds for lynching, you have to choose your words more carefully to avoid a war. I, too, am tired of activist filmmaking using the same old propaganda techniques. However, unless you strictly stick to criticizing ONLY the filmmaking, people will get mad at you, as shown.

Ironically enough, some of the most cherished and debated films in the Archive, Putnam included, are examples of activist filmmaking, so I guess we owe it to ourselves to put up with it for now, just so that we can appreciate it when it's appropriately aged.

Spuzz wasn't attacking you when he said "Oh dear." He just didn't want to get involved or have to put up with another Cashel-instigated fight over George Putnam.

You defend George Putnam like I defend Stanley Kubrick. Neither of us think we're right--it's past that--we both KNOW we're right, or, rather, we've convinced ourselves that we are. So when anyone with another valid opinion happens to disagree or seemingly desecrate that which we hold so dearly, we become upset. This is understandable.

If you are upset with their pro-gay film that makes use of George Putnam, just make your own anti-gay film that makes use of the cartoon that was referenced in the previous thread. Your parody would be protected by copyright law, and it would surely make them squirm, or at least want to. As far as I'm concerned, turnabout's fair play.

Now to address AKB and the others that were recently bashing Cashel. As I've pointed out, Cashel is rarely justified and only sometimes right, and he often goes about things the wrong way. But that doesn't mean that you are entirely right, either.

It is unfair to call someone who is against homosexuality a bigot. They are not. They merely hold a different opinion than you do, and until it is undeniably proven scientifically that homosexuality is genetic and not a choice, it is not bigoted to believe that it is wrong, that it is harmful to society, or that its influence is harmful to children.

To employ a classic analogy, skin color is not a choice, and therefore one is racist and bigoted to judge someone based on it; murder is a choice, and therefore it is not bigoted to judge someone for it. Homosexuality, while perhaps a harmless private lifestyle, has not been studied long enough to determine whether it is a choice or not and whether it is detrimental to society or not. Therefore, until that is determined, either view of it should be accepted equally, no matter how repugnant the other side may seem to you.

Anyway, that's about all I have to say. From now on, if the film isn't in the Archive, let's just forget about it and save our breath. And unless you're debating the merits of the filmmaking exclusively, it's just not worth it.

In the future, let's try not to deliberately step on so many toes, okay? And, while we're at it, let's all invest in some steel-toed shoes, too.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Jul 14, 2004 1:45pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: storm in tea-cup ended

I agree that I do not use Diplomacy. However I am one individual fighting the MOB. I will always fight fairly and endeavour to answer every point in their posts. . In contrast they nit-pick my posts, twist and contort my words and facts and thus avoid giving an honest answer. It is quite likely that I am wasting my time but some days I feel that I have to stand up and be counted. Thank you for your very considerate and intelligent reply. (p.s. interesting your mention of Kubrick---I can now appreciate his troubles when working with Peter Sellers and others of like nature)

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-07-14 05:40:24

This post was modified by cashel on 2004-07-14 20:45:05

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Spuzz Date: Jul 14, 2004 4:16am
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: SUMMING UP finis (somewhat OT)

Tambora, really interesting post..

Though I'm not too sure if the subject of homosexuality should be brought up here, (but since you brought it up), I might have to grudgingly agree with you that not all people who say homosexuality is wrong can be considered a bigot. Bigot IS too much of a strong word, misinformed? Sure. Like my Mom, she does'nt like the idea of homosexuality. Is she a bigot? I don't think so. Is she misinformed? I think so. Do I love her? You bet I do. I guess it just all comes down how much vocalizing is done. If my Mom opened up her own website criticizing homosexuals.. well then, I may change my views :)

Now, to Cashel, I'll defend this till the floor below me breaks, but I am NOT your 'Enemy' part of a 'mob' etc, and I doubt anyone of us are. Much like the homosexuality arguement, (and it's interesting how everything ties in together!) people are allowed to have different viewpoints, just like you, and we are allowed to defend them (just like you), so this is all part of a good debate. I NEVER attack you or your posts to the point of being harmful, and I hope you do the same for me.

Lastly, please keep mentioning off site films that ARE relevant to the archive. One can't live off of here, (sorry Rick!) and any and all offsite movies are of extreme interest, especially the clipfilm kind.

Bill

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: cashel Date: Jul 14, 2004 6:52am
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: SUMMING UP finis (somewhat OT)

BILL.. MY sincere thanks for your intelligent and charitable reply. In the past I have only taken issue when I have believed that you have made incorrect statements and it has been resolved peacefully without personal insults. I thimk that we are both tolerant ,generous people . My enemies are the PRESENTATIONS of ideas and opinions . For example the present string of arguments revolve around a film on same-sex marriage. The film was descrbed as a "good clip" which aroused my anger. I hate deceitful propaganda and regarded the film as a vile example. Ofcourse , I upset people and they got angry with me and regaled with personal insults .However, the weird aspect is that nobody asked me for my opinion on the subject . Actually I fully support same-sex marriages (although I will not try it for myself) And from my personal experence have seem mainly benefits from such relationships. I could go on and on but will give just one example to illustrate my thinking. For example I hate d w griffith,s : btrth of nation" propaganda presentations BUT his "Broken Blossums" is my most loved film and I consider it one the greatest( even surpassing Citizen Kane) finis jack I have to to go to the movie features FORUM for some light, entertaining reading.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: tambora Date: Jul 14, 2004 5:04pm
Forum: prelinger Subject: Re: SUMMING UP finis (somewhat OT)

Spuzz,

I was wrong about not mentioning films outside of the Archive. What I really wanted to avoid was arguing about films outside the Archive. As you mentioned, clipfilms are always relevant when they make use of the Archive's footage, so we should still talk about them.

And, if nothing else, we should encourage filmmakers to add their films to the Archive, and one way to do that is to prove to them that their film is important by generating a discussion about it.